A Short Statement about the Bible

[Brock]

About the Bible[1]

from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek

The light of nature, and the works of creation, and providence exhibit
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God; and they do so in such a way
that leaves humankind without excuse. But they are not sufficient by
themselves to give the knowledge humankind needs of God for salvation.

Therefore God revealed, and declared His Will to humankind, and
committed it to writing: He planned to use Holy Scripture as his pre-
eminent means to communicate, and with this distinguished and peerless
means established, He stopped the other ways in which he previously
revealed details regarding His plan for salvation.

Under the category of Holy Scripture are contained the books of the
old and new testaments[2], each of which are given by inspiration of
God to be the rule of faith and life. Apocryphal books are not
inspired, nor are a part of the canon. The authority of scripture
depends wholly upon God, the divine author. It is to be received
because it is the very word of God.

People should be moved and induced to a high and reverent esteem of
the Bible. It speaks of heavenly matters, provides efficient and
specific doctrines, has a majesty of style, a consent of all its
parts, and has a scope of its whole that gives glory to God. It makes
a full discovery of the only way for humankind's salvation. It offers
many normative truths, excellent beyond compare and is entirely
perfect for God's planned purpose.

External observations and measurements of its qualities, such as the
above, can and do give evidence that the Bible is the very word of
God. However, it is the testimony of God's Holy Spirit in human
hearts and minds that bears full persuasion and assurance.

The full counsel of God concerning things needed for God's glory and
humankind's salvation, are either expressly indicated by scripture, or
are deducible by good and necessary consequence. Therefore no
additional revelations of spirit, or traditions or best practices of
humankind, can add to scripture's canon. However, it is acknowledged
that the inward illumination of the Spirit of God is necessary for a
saving understanding of God's revelation; and that there are
circumstances concerning the worship of God and church government,
common to human activities and societies, which should be ordered by
the light of nature and the prudence of believers, according to the
general principles outlined, which are to always be observed.

All things in scripture are not equally plain, or obvious to all
persons; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed,
and observed for salvation are so clearly opened in scripture that not
only the highest of the educated, but even common persons, can
generally and without distinction make a due use of ordinary faculties
and means to attain a sufficient understanding of them.

The original autographs of scripture, largely Hebrew in the old
testament, and largely Greek in the new testament - are immediately
inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence. Their
truths by Him are kept pure through time, and are authentic and pre-
eminent in controversy. Their testimony is normative, and the final
appeal for believers.

The original tongues of these autographs are not known by all;
therefore they are to be translated into various common languages; so
that people from every nation, being commanded in the fear of God, may
read them and search them - the authority of the truths dwell
plentifully in all, so that believers without distinction may worship
Him in an acceptable manner, and may receive, through patience and
the comfort of the scripture, a blessed and eternal hope.

Questions about specific portions of scripture, are best answered
within the context of other portions of scripture. The supreme Judge
of controversy involving its truths, pre-eminent and normative over
all human decrees, councils, opinions and traditions is God's Holy
Spirit speaking through the truths of scripture.

Amen.

Amen and God bless you.

[1] This short statement is offered as a modern paraphrase of the
first chapter of the Westminster Confession,
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html
[2] ibid, section 2

[SM]

Well articulated; thanks Brock.

It's refreshing to have someone in this forum provide comment about Scripture that actually knows what they're talking about!  IMO, The Huffington Post can hardly be considered a reliable source for much of anything, most especially Scripture!

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 11:28 AM, SM <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well articulated; thanks Brock.
> It's refreshing to have someone in this forum provide comment about
> Scripture that actually knows what they're talking about!  IMO, The
> Huffington Post can hardly be considered a reliable source for much of
> anything, most especially Scripture!

Thanks, SM!

Regards,

Brock

[e_space]

lots of "truths" and factual sounding statements are specified in this
post ... how many of which are supported by facts? ... the propensity
of believers to state their faith in factual terminology knows no
bounds ...

> first chapter of the Westminster Confession,http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html
> [2] ibid, section 2

[e_space]

we S&M, you know the scriptures better than the general population in
here, i'll give you that much ... most likely because you live so
fervently under their guidance and demands ... however, in regards to
your *civilly* expressed observation "It's refreshing to have someone

in this forum provide comment about Scripture that actually knows what

they're talking about!", one must ask the question ... how can one
KNOW the scriptures are truth? reciting the scriptures, or the history
of such, is one thing ... relating to them as truth is entirely
different ...

regarding your misconception as it relates to brock's post ... "Well
articulated" ... i would suggest that since brock's post was a copy/
paste job, it is no reflection either on his ability to articulate, or
of his knowledge of the scriptures, but more of an indication that he
can successfully manipulate google and his mouse ...

On May 2, 11:28 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On May 2, 2011, at 13:55, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> lots of "truths" and factual sounding statements are specified in this
> post ... how many of which are supported by facts? ... the propensity
> of believers to state their faith in factual terminology knows no
> bounds ...

As is the propensity for non-believers to reject the truth of Christ!

[Brock Organ]

Well, normative truths are very often not demonstrable. This doesn't
make them any less true, it just points out the limitations of an
appeal to demonstration. Aristotle noted similarly:

"Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary
premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but
that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a
necessary deduction from the premises. ... Our own doctrine is that
not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the
immediate premises is independent of demonstration. ... Such, then, is
our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific
knowledge there is its original source which enables us to recognize
the definitions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress

An interesting and fun read about the issue is at:

"Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons
threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is
impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be
further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By
definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First
Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be
proven."

http://www.friesian.com/arch.htm

This again relates to what Bahnsen talked about earlier, the fallacy
of the crackers in the pantry and the pretended neutrality fallacy. I
think this also points out the problem with your earlier
"incontrovertible" assessments, any reason can be further challenged,
and the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress.

Regards,

Brock

[Tracey Maddow]

On May 2, 8:28 am, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well articulated; thanks Brock.
>
> It's refreshing to have someone in this forum provide comment about
> Scripture that actually knows what they're talking about!  IMO, The
> Huffington Post can hardly be considered a reliable source for much of
> anything, most especially Scripture!

LOL, IMO, Not even the New York Times nor the Los Angeles Times for
that matter, they really don't know much about Scripture!

[e_space]

i could possibly agree ... however, i never met the man, and for some
reason i have this silly tendency not to believe something just
because i read it, or heard it second hand from those who got their
"truth" from the often-translated words of men long-dead ... from my
perspective, truth about some things just cannot be found in
words ...

some people go far through the art of self promotion ... i have no
such ambition myself, and even if i did feel that i was somehow
special, the last thing i would do is go around preaching of my own
self worth ... for example, i would never say "i am the way, the truth
and the life, no man cometh to the father but through me" ... ones
value should speak for itself ... you know, let someone else beat your
drum ... just my way of looking at it ...

On May 2, 5:57 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

if a "truth" that is heard second hand is not demonstrative, why
believe it?

On May 2, 6:13 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 5:57 PM, 14SM.jcil <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On May 2, 2011, at 14:06, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> we S&M, you know the scriptures better than the general population in
> here, i'll give you that much ... most likely because you live so
> fervently under their guidance and demands ...

Well, by God's grace I certainly try to!

> however, in regards to
> your *civilly* expressed observation "It's refreshing to have someone
> in this forum provide comment about Scripture that actually knows what
> they're talking about!", one must ask the question ... how can one
> KNOW the scriptures are truth? reciting the scriptures, or the history
> of such, is one thing ... relating to them as truth is entirely
> different ...

Great question!! (I think I've been waiting for this question for more than a year!)

I begin my response by noting that there's not one single answer to this question; I may add to my response later as other thoughts occur to me.

One of the first confirmations I'll mention is the one which is probably the least effable. Certainly, it's of no help for non-believers since they don't have capacity to sense this themselves (and frankly I think it stands to reason that such a validation like this should exist), but I'll mention it anyway because it's very real. The Spirit of God provides an inner assurance within a believer whose spirit has been made alive through the conversion experience. The Spirit of God is very alive and active in the life of a believer (you talk about experiences of 'spirit', e, you literally 'ain't seen nothin' yet'!); one of the functions of the Spirit is to provide the believer with an assurance of the truths if Christ and the hope of an eternity in God's presence.

Another way to KNOW the Scriptures are true is in observing how well the Bible comports with observable reality. While it doesn't pretend to inform us of everything about all areas of life (instead, its primary focus is informing us thoroughly as to the merciful and miraculous provision that God has made in order to reconcile us to him), there are no incontrovertibly understood truths of science, history, psychology, sociology (or you name the field of study), which contradict what the Bible teaches. In fact, some of the most accomplished scientists and intellects of all time have frequently been manifestly Christian, or at least significantly influenced by the Bible.

Likewise, for those areas in which empirical evidence is difficult to come by, the Bible provides us with plausible explanations as to how some things work, or how things came to be. Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false despite many, many attempts to do so. It is one of the most highly scrutinized written works of all time. It consistently withstands robust scrutiny (as should be expected of any source that might be considered worthy of our trust and reliance).

Another observation is the miraculous construct of the Bible; it's no small thing that 40 different people contributed to the Bible and yet produced a work that is coherent and consistent throughout. People from different parts of the world, often living in the midst of different cultures and languages, and living at various times across a period of about 1,500 years. When one considers how even a handful of witnesses to a single event rarely report a consistent account what occurred, it's a testament to the miraculous activity of the Spirit of God to ensure that the message of Christ is clearly and consistently maintained throughout.

Along with the above, the miraculous is evidenced through the hundreds of prophetic revelations specified within. And these prophecies are NOT inscrutable Nostradamus-like predictions (well, maybe a couple of them are)...they are typically highly specific, and therefore easily verified as can been seen in those which to this date come to pass.

I think it's also significant that the Jews are a unique people in the history of the world. A people that have been consistently and perpetually hated throughout the world, they alone have persevered and maintained their unique cultural and religious identity despite having been scattered worldwide for centuries. It typically takes only two generations for a people to begin to lose their unique identity once they've been assimilated in a foreign land and culture, but this has not happened with the Jews (and the Bible tells us why). This is also a validation of the Bible.

Admittedly less compelling but noteworthy (I think) is how human language incorporates numerous colloquialisms about God. People the world around exclaim "Oh my God!" when overwhelmed, and none curse Allah!, Buddha!, or Dagon! (or you name a deity). Kind of an unusual validation I'll grant you, but it's an undeniable observation nevertheless. I surmise it's because the very real adversary of mankind desires to exacerbate mankind's separation from our Creator at every opportunity.

I reserve the right to add some more to this list.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 2, 2011, at 14:06, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> regarding your misconception as it relates to brock's post ... "Well
> articulated" ... i would suggest that since brock's post was a copy/
> paste job, it is no reflection either on his ability to articulate, or
> of his knowledge of the scriptures, but more of an indication that he
> can successfully manipulate google and his mouse ...

Perhaps you're right, but how do you know? Have you found the original author and therefore have a legitimate basis for your assertion, or is this yet another example if your baseless accusations?

Since Brock consistently provides attributions for any quotes that he provides, and hasn't done do in this case, I think you're 'blowing smoke' (again).

[14SM.jcil]

On May 2, 2011, at 19:48, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> i could possibly agree ... however, i never met the man,

Well the experience in doing so is every bit as real as your experience with 'spirit'. He has literally changed the lives of hundreds of millions (perhaps billions?)...another validation of the Bible!

> i would never say "i am the way, the truth
> and the life, no man cometh to the father but through me"

Of course, such a statement from you or any mere man would be ludicrous, but nothing less than life-changing truth as spoken by God himself.

[Joe]

On May 2, 8:54 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> About the Bible[1]
>
> from:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek
>
> The light of nature, and the works of creation, and providence exhibit
> the goodness, wisdom, and power of God; and they do so in such a way
> that leaves humankind without excuse.  But they are not sufficient by
> themselves to give the knowledge humankind needs of God for salvation.
>
> Therefore God revealed, and declared His Will to humankind, and
> committed it to writing: He planned to use Holy Scripture as his pre-
> eminent means to communicate, and with this distinguished and peerless
> means established, He stopped the other ways in which he previously
> revealed details regarding His plan for salvation.
>

That isn't in Scripture.

> Under the category of Holy Scripture are contained the books of the
> old and new testaments[2], each of which are given by inspiration of
> God to be the rule of faith and life.  Apocryphal books are not
> inspired, nor are a part of the canon.  

But deuterocanonical books are, to wit:

The Catholic deuterocanonical scriptural texts are:

* Tobit
* Judith
* Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)[18]
* Wisdom
* Sirach, also called Ben Sira or Ecclesiasticus
* Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah
in the Septuagint)[19]
* Additions to Daniel:
o Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children
(Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
o Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
o Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint
epilogue)
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees

These books are equally part of Holy Scripture, with the
protocanonical books and the New Testament.

According to Scripture, however, the final word rests with the Church,
and not with a book, not even the Bible.

Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: You are Christ, the Son
of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed are
you, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood has not revealed it to
you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to you: That you are
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to you the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on
earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 18:15 But if your brother shall offend against you, go, and
rebuke him between you and him alone. If he shall hear you, you shall
gain your brother. 16 And if he will not hear you, take with you one
or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he
will not hear the church, let him be to you as the heathen and
publican. 18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth,
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon
earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

1 Timothy 3:14 These things I write to you, hoping that I shall come
to you shortly. 15 But if I tarry long, that you may know how you
ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of
the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 John 4:6 We are of God. He that knows God hears us. He that is not
of God hears us not. By this we know the spirit of truth and the
spirit of error.

Not only these Scriptures, but also the earliest documents of the
Church, unanimously testify that the final appeal for believers is the
Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. It is he who is the successor of Saint
Peter and therefore in possession, by virtue of that office, of the
Charism of Infallibility for the whole Church.

> The original tongues of these autographs are not known by all;
> therefore they are to be translated into various common languages; so
> that people from every nation, being commanded in the fear of God, may
> read them and search them - the authority of the truths dwell
> plentifully in all, so that believers without distinction may worship
> Him in an acceptable manner,  and may receive, through patience and
> the comfort of the scripture, a blessed and eternal hope.
>
> Questions about specific portions of scripture, are best answered
> within the context of other portions of scripture.  The supreme Judge
> of controversy involving its truths, pre-eminent and normative over
> all human decrees, councils, opinions and traditions is God's Holy
> Spirit speaking through the truths of scripture.
>

Nonetheless it needs to be pointed out that Ecumenical Councils under
the authority of the Pope are not "human councils," and their decrees
are not "human decrees." Therefore they are to be received, as they
are, as the utterances of that selfsame Holy Spirit who first inspired
the Scriptures. Also, the Pope, by virtue of the Gift of
Infallibility communicated to Saint Peter and him alone, may pronounce
dogma "ex cathedra," meaning, from the Chair of Peter, and such
pronouncements are binding on all the Faithful. It is impossible, of
course, that any pronouncement of Catholic Dogma either by a Council
or a Pope should even contradict Holy Scripture, since it is one and
the same Holy Spirit who is the Author of both.

Saint Paul wrote to the Thessalonians,

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the
traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our
epistle.

Plainly, then, not all the teachings of Christ were committed to
writing, since if they were, Saint Paul would not have said, "whether
by word or by our epistle," indicating both an oral and a written
Tradition.

But anyone, reading the Holy Scriptures with a mind open to the truth
of God, can discern in the Holy Spirit that the Scriptures are
speaking about a living Church, wherein is found the fullness of the
means of salvation, and will thus be led to seek and to find that
living Church, and will find it, finally, in the Catholic Church.

May God bring you home! Amen!

> Amen.
>
> Amen and God bless you.
>
> [1] This short statement is offered as a modern paraphrase of the

> first chapter of the Westminster Confession,http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html
> [2] ibid, section 2

[e_space]

from why i have gathered, "he" has not literally changed the lives of
people, but their perception of him, from what they have been told by
men, has had the impact you are talking about ... just like children
whose lives are changed once a year because they are told that a
bearded man on a sleigh is going to land on their roof, and deliver
presents down their chimney ... one can get affected by propaganda,
myths, stories and lies ... as is quite obvious

jesus was flesh and blood, a man who most likely had children, a big
nose and balding head ... your perception of the man as being god, is
the belief you live under ... this has nothing to do with the known
truth ... thats why its called belief, and why you operate under
faith, rather than knowledge?

On May 2, 10:55 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

how do i know? well, when someone starts a post as follows;

"About the Bible[1]

from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek "

now, once you have read this, do you seriously consider that the
commentary is coming from brock, or as he clearly indicates, its
"FROM: HTTP......" ?

so no, i do not consider this "yet another example if your baseless
accusations" ... please give it some additional thought and let me
know what you conclude ... see if you can see through my "blowing
smoke" ...

On May 2, 10:43 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 6:29, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> how do i know? well, when someone starts a post as follows;
>
> "About the Bible[1]
>
> from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw5B63Co6ek "
>
> now, once you have read this, do you seriously consider that the
> commentary is coming from brock, or as he clearly indicates, its
> "FROM: HTTP......" ?
>
> so no, i do not consider this "yet another example if your baseless
> accusations" ... please give it some additional thought and let me
> know what you conclude ... see if you can see through my "blowing
> smoke" ...

So your assumption is what...that Brock couldn't have created the video??!

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 6:35, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> from why i have gathered, "he" has not literally changed the lives of
> people,

I can tell from firsthand and secondhand experience that what you choose to believe differs from what is really true.

> jesus was flesh and blood,

Right; both fully God and fully human.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 3, 2011, at 20:35, "14SM.jcil" <14sm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 3, 2011, at 6:35, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> from why i have gathered, "he" has not literally changed the lives of
>> people,
>

What I was trying to say (in my previous post):

You may choose to believe otherwise, but I can assure you based on firsthand experience and knowledge of the lives of others that what you choose to believe on this point is false. The power of God, through trust in the work of Christ on their behalf, dramatically changes men forever.

[e_space]

according to your sunday school lessons, you are right ... according
to the "truth", you are commenting through faith ...

On May 3, 8:35 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

people who are brainwashed can feel great ... that doesnt mean that
what has been put in their heads is true, but it just makes them feel
better ... a psychiatrist, a mood altering drug, a car accident,
getting married, having children, or receiving a jail sentence can
also change ones life forever ... the followers of james jones had
their lives changed forever, until he snuffed them out ...

having ones life changed forever is no indication of the value of the
change, or verification that what changed it originates in "truth" ...
for example, islam "dramatically changes men forever" [women too i
imagine], yet some people claim that religion is false ... what is the
difference between that, and what you are claiming?

the experiences that i had, changed my life forever ... i would have
had these without ever hearing of the bible ... and they are
infinitely more important than the years i had the book preached to
me ... humans are susceptible to what penetrates their ears and
mind ... they can be greatly impacted by this ... the "truth" of what
they accept is often not known ...

On May 3, 8:46 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 2011, at 20:35, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:54 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

according to your sunday school lessons, you are right ... according
to the "truth", you are commenting through faith ...

 

I accept the distinction (and until the past two weeks, I always have).  However, I also maintain that I believe that there is exceptionally good reason to consider the assertions I've made to be worthy of consideration as 'truth' (i.e., that which is descriptive of reality).

I accept that you consider differently, but I don't know that you've ever given consideration to my stated reasons for believing as I do (you undoubtedly have your reasons for thinking otherwise - and I don't diminish their validity for you personally; I'm referring to the consideration of my reasons).

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:09 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

people who are brainwashed can feel great ... that doesnt mean that
what has been put in their heads is true, but it just makes them feel
better ... a psychiatrist, a mood altering drug, a car accident,
getting married, having children, or receiving a jail sentence can
also change ones life forever ... the followers of james jones had
their lives changed forever, until he snuffed them out ...

Your use of 'brainwashing' to describe the beliefs of Christians is a denigration that I believe arises from ignorance.  It's ignorant (or at least a willful disregard) of the fact that 'many', if not 'most', have arrived at their beliefs through careful and solemn consideration...possibly much like I would be inclined to attribute to the basis for your own views.  The fact that they've arrived at a different conclusion than you regarding the evidence at hand does not in any way imply that they've been 'brainwashed'.

 

having ones life changed forever is no indication of the value of the
change, or verification that what changed it originates in "truth" ...
for example, islam "dramatically changes men forever" [women too i
imagine], yet some people claim that religion is false ... what is the
difference between that, and what you are claiming?

Ok, now here's something tangible...I see that entirely differently.  In fact, the very real and observable change that occurs in the life of an authentic believer (and it's important to note that the change to which I refer only occurs in an authentic believer - where actual spiritual transformation has actually occurred) is itself one of the validations for me of the truth of Christianity.  The changes that take place are so dramatic, and so life altering, that they cannot be denied.

 

the experiences that i had, changed my life forever ... i would have
had these without ever hearing of the bible ... and they are
infinitely more important than the years i had the book preached to
me ... humans are susceptible to what penetrates their ears and
mind ... they can be greatly impacted by this ... the "truth" of what
they accept is often not known ...

Fine. I don't diminish the experiences of 'spirit' that you've had, but the 'change' to which I'm referring is more than a warm glow of remembrance...I'm talking about being ontologically changed forever, such that one actually begins to reflect the character and nature of our Creator (as was originally designed).  He lives his life in service to God above all, and in service to others as part of his service to God.  He willingly subjugates his own natural selfish desires and tendencies, not out of guilt or obligation but out of gratitude for what he has been given.  Over time, the Spirit of God changes the thoughts, attitudes, and intentions of a believer so that their lives emanate the very grace of God to those around them.  They exude the following characteristics of God himself: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

[e_space]

"consideration as truth" does not equate to reality imo ... it does
equate back to belief ... some people thought jones spoke the
truth ... and it cost em, big time!

the very fact that you buy mans evaluation of god right down to the
written word, indicates to me that your personal experiences either
are non-existent, or that you have not found them to be a valid window
to god ... if you had personal experience with god, i feel that you
would shed some of the biblical jargon, as you would realize that it
is not representative of the true nature of god ... from my
perspective of course ...

On May 4, 2:51 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:54 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > according to your sunday school lessons, you are right ... according
> > to the "truth", you are commenting through faith ...
>
> I accept the distinction (and until the past two weeks, I always have).
>  However, I also maintain that I believe that there is exceptionally good
> reason to consider the assertions I've made to be worthy of consideration as
> 'truth' (i.e., that which is descriptive of reality).
>
> I accept that you consider differently, but I don't know that you've ever
> given consideration to my stated reasons for believing as I do (you

> undoubtedly have *your* reasons for thinking otherwise - and I don't

> diminish their validity for you personally; I'm referring to the

> consideration of *my* reasons).

[e_space]

sorta puzzling that many who "have arrived at their beliefs through
careful and solemn consideration" are now leaving the church ... why
do you think that is? the percentage of church goers are diminishing
at substantial rates ... maybe some are getting a glimpse of
misconceptions, falsehoods, and manipulation, and grow weary of
unsubstantiated stories being spoken as truth, often with threatening
overtures?

peoples lives are also substantially changed by OBE's, i would say
much more dramatically than years of religious teachings ...

i dont recognize god as having "character" per se, as such is too
confining and expicit ... and i especially do not recognize god as
being a "he" ... the very concept of a genetically endowed god is too
far removed from reason to seriously consider ...

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

gentleness, and self-control" can be experienced by an atheist, so im
not sure why you are stating these are a characteristics attained
through worship and belief ... many xtians do not have these traits,
and many atheists do ... in other words, belief in god, or the lack
thereof, does not elicit, or deny, these traits ... some of the vilest
men on the planet held lofty positions in the hierarchy of
religion ...

On May 4, 3:20 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:09 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > people who are brainwashed can feel great ... that doesnt mean that
> > what has been put in their heads is true, but it just makes them feel
> > better ... a psychiatrist, a mood altering drug, a car accident,
> > getting married, having children, or receiving a jail sentence can
> > also change ones life forever ... the followers of james jones had
> > their lives changed forever, until he snuffed them out ...
>
> Your use of 'brainwashing' to describe the beliefs of Christians is a
> denigration that I believe arises from ignorance.  It's ignorant (or at
> least a willful disregard) of the fact that 'many', if not 'most', have
> arrived at their beliefs through careful and solemn consideration...possibly
> much like I would be inclined to attribute to the basis for your own views.
>  The fact that they've arrived at a different conclusion than you regarding
> the evidence at hand does not in any way imply that they've been
> 'brainwashed'.
>
> > having ones life changed forever is no indication of the value of the
> > change, or verification that what changed it originates in "truth" ...
> > for example, islam "dramatically changes men forever" [women too i
> > imagine], yet some people claim that religion is false ... what is the
> > difference between that, and what you are claiming?
>
> Ok, now here's something tangible...I see that entirely differently.  In
> fact, the very real and observable change that occurs in the life of an
> authentic believer (and it's important to note that the change to which I

> refer *only* occurs in an authentic believer - where actual spiritual

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

"consideration as truth" does not equate to reality imo ... it does
equate back to belief ... some people thought jones spoke the
truth ... and it cost em, big time!

I agree, but we each owe it to ourselves to investigate that which is 'true' and 'real'.  Naturally, some truths are beyond being empirically proven, so the best we can do is honestly evaluate all of the evidence at hand.

 

the very fact that you buy mans evaluation of god right down to the
written word, indicates to me that your personal experiences either
are non-existent, or that you have not found them to be a valid window
to god ... if you had personal experience with god, i feel that you
would shed some of the biblical jargon, as you would realize that it
is not representative of the true nature of god ... from my
perspective of course ...

I accept your perspective, but I note that it is uninformed.  As I've informed you previously, I do not consider that I "buy man's evaluation of God".  My personal experiences have confirmed the considerable evidence that is available to all who are willing to consider it honestly.

I am personally convinced that my direct experiences with God are genuine because they comport with what the Bible describes as valid and true.  I believe that the Bible is an authority on what is valid and true for the reasons I've stated in other posts.

[e_space]

great ;-^)

On May 4, 4:10 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

sorta puzzling that many who "have arrived at their beliefs through
careful and solemn consideration" are now leaving the church ... why
do you think that is? the percentage of church goers are diminishing
at substantial rates ... maybe some are getting a glimpse of
misconceptions, falsehoods, and manipulation, and grow weary of
unsubstantiated stories being spoken as truth, often with threatening
overtures?

I can't comment on why people are "leaving the church" (or even if that is a true statement)...to make such an assessment would necessitate an assumption.  Assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.

What I can say that the experience in my church is the opposite of what you've described.  The group of believers that my family is a part of is a vibrant community that is actively growing.  Lives are being changed, both within our church and to those areas in which we are privileged to extend God's grace and mercy.

 

peoples lives are also substantially changed by OBE's, i would say
much more dramatically than years of religious teachings ...

I agree...although I may not mean the same about the latter part of your statement as you might be intending to convey.

I have been actively researching NDE's recently and cataloguing a large list of observations that are generally common about those experiences.  I hope to share my research in this forum at some point; I find this research (which has considerable scientific support by the way) extremely intriguing, and note that it is yet another cause for confidence in what the Bible describes to be valid and true.

 

i dont recognize god as having "character" per se, as such is too
confining and expicit ... and i especially do not recognize god as
being a "he" ... the very concept of a genetically endowed god is too
far removed from reason to seriously consider ...

I accept your perspective, but consider that it is ignorant of what the Bible describes about God.  As for the 'gender' of God, I don't think it necessarily implies that God has male reproductive organs.  I think God chooses to refer to himself in masculine terms for reasons of greater depth and meaning (i.e., the role of a father as a provider and protector could be one example).

 

"love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

gentleness, and self-control" can be experienced by an atheist, so im
not sure why you are stating these are a characteristics attained
through worship and belief ... many xtians do not have these traits,
and many atheists do ... in other words, belief in god, or the lack
thereof, does not elicit, or deny, these traits ... some of the vilest
men on the planet held lofty positions in the hierarchy of
religion ...

I'm willing to continue dialogue with you, but I consider that the minimum requirement toward progress in understanding necessitates that you acknowledge and rely on the answers I give you as being representative of my view.  The fact that you continue to refer to 'religion' ignores my uncountable posts which reference something more than religion.

As measured by human standards one might consider that they exhibit the characteristics specified above, but God measures by his standards.  No man exhibits the genuine fruit of the Spirit of God without having been authentically transformed by the Spirit of God.

[e_space]

regarding your newest favorite phrase: "Assumptions lead to wrong
conclusions" ... i guess you are "assuming" that i was "assuming" when
i said that church attendance was dropping ... right? is this an
example of your heightened attempts at civility?

you might try a bit of research, although i dont expect you to verify
my statement, so here ya go ... enjoy

http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/church/stats/iss_church_stats_attendance.asp

On May 4, 4:40 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sorta puzzling that many who "have arrived at their beliefs through
> > careful and solemn consideration" are now leaving the church ... why
> > do you think that is? the percentage of church goers are diminishing
> > at substantial rates ... maybe some are getting a glimpse of
> > misconceptions, falsehoods, and manipulation, and grow weary of
> > unsubstantiated stories being spoken as truth, often with threatening
> > overtures?
>
> I can't comment on why people are "leaving the church" (or even if that is a
> true statement)...to make such an assessment would necessitate an
> assumption.  Assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
>

> What I *can* say that the experience in my church is the opposite of what

[e_space]

re: "I'm willing to continue dialogue with you, but I consider that

the minimum requirement toward progress in understanding necessitates
that you acknowledge and rely on the answers I give you as being
representative of my
view. The fact that you continue to refer to 'religion' ignores my
uncountable posts which reference something more than religion."

... you say this in response to my comment that people who do not
believe in god, also can have the traits that you attribute to the
spirit of god, as follows ...

"Over time, the Spirit of God changes the thoughts, attitudes, and
intentions of a believer so that their lives emanate the very grace of
God to those around them. They exude the following characteristics of

God himself: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. "

... notice how many times you use god with capital letters? well, the
God you speak for, is the God of Abraham, the god of the xtian
religion, is it not? whenever someone uses the word god with capital
letters, it refers to the xtian god ... xtianity is a religion, so why
are you trying to separate your comment from religion?

On May 4, 4:40 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sorta puzzling that many who "have arrived at their beliefs through
> > careful and solemn consideration" are now leaving the church ... why
> > do you think that is? the percentage of church goers are diminishing
> > at substantial rates ... maybe some are getting a glimpse of
> > misconceptions, falsehoods, and manipulation, and grow weary of
> > unsubstantiated stories being spoken as truth, often with threatening
> > overtures?
>
> I can't comment on why people are "leaving the church" (or even if that is a
> true statement)...to make such an assessment would necessitate an
> assumption.  Assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
>

> What I *can* say that the experience in my church is the opposite of what

[14SM.jcil]

On May 4, 2011, at 19:31, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

> regarding your newest favorite phrase: "Assumptions lead to wrong
> conclusions" ... i guess you are "assuming" that i was "assuming" when
> i said that church attendance was dropping ... right? is this an
> example of your heightened attempts at civility?

Civility includes reading and acknowledging what is explicitly typed. Each of our efforts to pay attention benefit us both and furthers our discussion. Oversights and misunderstandings occur, even inadvertently.

In this case, you're the one who has inadvertently overlooked what has been typed. Have another look at my post and see that what I was saying is that I didn't want to make an assumption about *why* people are allegedly 'leaving the church'. FWIW, I didn't doubt that you had an article that informed you as much (I think I recall when you originally mentioned it to Joe some time ago)...my comment to you had nothing to do with that - it was you who assumed wrong instead of reading what was clearly typed.

[14SM.jcil]

On May 4, 2011, at 19:39, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

re: "I'm willing to continue dialogue with you, but I consider that
the minimum requirement toward progress in understanding necessitates
that you acknowledge and rely on the answers I give you as being
representative of my
view.  The fact that you continue to refer to 'religion' ignores my
uncountable posts which reference something more than religion."

... you say this in response to my comment that people who do not
believe in god, also can have the traits that you attribute to the
spirit of god, as follows ...

<sigh> No, I said that in response to this comment:

some of the vilest

men on the planet held lofty positions in the hierarchy of

religion ...

"Over time, the Spirit of God changes the thoughts, attitudes, and
intentions of a believer so that their lives emanate the very grace of
God to those around them.  They exude the following characteristics of
God himself: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. "

... notice how many times you use god with capital letters? well, the
God you speak for, is the God of Abraham, the god of the xtian
religion, is it not? whenever someone uses the word god with capital
letters, it refers to the xtian god ... xtianity is a religion, so why
are you trying to separate your comment from religion?

Abraham did not consider that he was a part of any 'religion'; he enjoyed relationship with God.  It is exactly this same type of relationship with God to which I refer.

[e_space]

re: "Have another look at my post and see that what I was saying is

that I didn't want to make an assumption about *why* people are
allegedly 'leaving the church'"

ummm ... maybe you forgot about the comment you put in brackets that
questions the truth of my statement? ... as follows;

SM: "I can't comment on why people are "leaving the church" (or even

if that is a true statement)"

On May 4, 8:27 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[e_space]

if you enjoy a personal relationship with god, why are you
continuously quoting the words of man as it relates to the subject?
why are you telling me that i should not consider my experiences as
valid unless compared to some trustworthy and reliable external
source? [presumably what other men have to say about it]

the bible did not lead me to my experiences, and they render
everything ive read in the book obsolete ... if you hadnt read the
book, would your relationship with god be the same? ... your religion
steers and guides your relationship, does it not?

On May 4, 8:32 pm, "14SM.jcil" <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:10 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

re: "Have another look at my post and see that what I was saying is

that I didn't want to make an assumption about *why* people are
allegedly 'leaving the church'"

ummm ... maybe you forgot about the comment you put in brackets that
questions the truth of my statement? ... as follows;

SM: "I can't comment on why people are "leaving the church" (or even

if that is a true statement)"

Without having read the article or having done the research myself, my comment on the veracity of the claim would have been based on an assumption.  Assumptions lead to erroneous conclusions.  This is something I try to avoid.

[SM]

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:16 AM, e_space <espac...@gmail.com> wrote:

if you enjoy a personal relationship with god, why are you
continuously quoting the words of man as it relates to the subject?

As I've expressed to you countless times before, e, I don't regard the words that I'm quoting to merely be the "words of man".

 

why are you telling me that i should not consider my experiences as
valid unless compared to some trustworthy and reliable external
source? [presumably what other men have to say about it]

I'm suggesting that if our aim is the pursuit of understanding what is true (about virtually anything, including our experiences), we need to validate our perceptions and assessments against that which we've determined to be reliable and trustworthy as a source for truth.  Truth is non-contradictory (although it can sometimes appear to otherwise) so if our perceptions, assessments, and conclusions are not in agreement with our reliable truth standard, we need to change our conclusions.

 

the bible did not lead me to my experiences, and they render
everything ive read in the book obsolete ... if you hadnt read the
book, would your relationship with god be the same? ... your religion
steers and guides your relationship, does it not?

Well, I suggest then that you haven't read all of the Bible or understood what it is that you've read, for the Bible certainly informs us about the spirit world.  Experiences with the spirit world provide confirmation of what the Bible claims, they don't make it obsolete.

You've asked and I've answered this question before...I can't speak with certitude about a hypothetical "what if"; I can only speak from what is.  The best I can do is observe that no one else has had my specific life experiences, and yet countless others have come to the same conclusion about God as I.  I expect then, that it's just as likely that God would have worked through any of the limitless other life experiences that I could have had to extend His mercy and grace to me as He has.

Since I've already addressed the notion of 'religion' versus 'relationship' countless times previously, perhaps you can rephrase your question so that I can better understand what you're asking that you consider is different from what I've already stated.

[e_space]

i suggest that youve read the bible, and believed it verbatim ... your
perogative i guess ... i have this nagging tendency to not believe
something just because it seems to be authentic ... the more i hear
about experienced religious historians debating the veracity of the
bible, the more i think i have made the right decision to question
what i have been taught and read ... the history and authenticity of
the bible is really a contentious issue these days, even with
religious scholars, so the fact that you still take it verbatim as
truth, does say something positive about your staywithitness ... so
congrats on that at least ...

On May 5, 2:15 pm, SM <14sm.j...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:16 AM, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > if you enjoy a personal relationship with god, why are you
> > continuously quoting the words of man as it relates to the subject?
>
> As I've expressed to you countless times before, e, I don't regard the words
> that I'm quoting to merely be the "words of man".
>
> > why are you telling me that i should not consider my experiences as
> > valid unless compared to some trustworthy and reliable external
> > source? [presumably what other men have to say about it]
>
> I'm suggesting that if our aim is the pursuit of understanding what is true
> (about virtually anything, including our experiences), we need to validate
> our perceptions and assessments against that which we've determined to be
> reliable and trustworthy as a source for truth.  Truth is non-contradictory

> (although it *can* sometimes appear to otherwise) so if our perceptions,